Military aid resumed, intel sharing ban lifted, ceasefire format consensus reached.
This is, in a nutshell, the result of the talks between the Ukrainian and US delegations that took place in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Tuesday.
The closed-door discussions at the lavish Ritz-Carlton featured US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Andriy Sybiha, Head of Zelenskyy’s Office Andriy Yermak, and Minister of Defense Rustem Umerov.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy did not participate in the talks, though he had arrived in Saudi Arabia the day before, where Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman greeted him.
Moscow in flames
The meeting happened against two significant backdrops.
On Monday, Rubio, on his way to Saudi Arabia, made it clear that Ukraine would have to cede territory to Russia as part of any negotiated settlement should it ever come to fruition.
“I think both sides need to come to an understanding that there’s no military solution to this situation,” Rubio said. “The Russians can’t conquer all of Ukraine, and obviously, it’ll be very difficult for Ukraine in any reasonable time period to sort of force the Russians back all the way to where they were in 2014.”
This statement, though not new, caused a negative reaction, especially since later, it was claimed that the US ruled out reclaiming the 2022 borders. The Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation later refuted it.
The second backdrop was Ukraine’s largest-scale attack on Moscow, launched the night before the negotiations, which reportedly killed three people. Perhaps the rationale of that attack was best captured by the Telegraph’s senior foreign correspondent Roland Oliphant, who noted that this strike was cooked up in advance and potentially cleared off by the American delegation.
“The diplomatic purpose is several-fold: it demonstrates to Russia that Ukraine, too, can cause damage on the home territory of its adversary. It tells ordinary Russians, once again, that the war is not something distant to be ignored. That, in defiance of Donald Trump’s words, Ukraine still holds some cards,” he wrote, adding that only the outcome of the US-Ukraine talks will show whether America deems this move appropriate.
The answer is likely a yes, as the participants were in a cautiously optimistic mood even in the early stages of the negotiations. When asked about his expectations for the meeting, Rubio smiled at the cameras and gave a thumbs-up and replied, “Good.” Meanwhile, Zelenskyy’s right-hand man, Yermak, said that it began constructively.
What stood out the most, and perhaps drew the attention of the public, was that with the exception of Umerov, both representatives of Ukraine and the US all wore bespoke suits. Following the now infamous spat in the Oval Office that saw Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, POTUS Donald Trump, and Vice-President J.D. Vance engage in a fiery exchange, the “do you own a suit?” matter has become not only a heated subject, but also a signal from the Trump’s administration that they wish to see the sense of normality back. Trump, after all, does not like wars in principle, and his entire track record boils down to finding ways of avoiding them. Hence, for example, the Abraham Accords signed between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and between Israel and Bahrain on 15 September 2020.
The Ukrainian delegation was also reportedly coached by Europeans, including U.K. PM Keir Starmer, who found common ground with Trump during his visit to Washington, D.C., and helped Zelenskyy extend an olive branch to Trump afterward.
The stakes of the negotiations were especially high since following the Oval Office spat and several uncareful remarks by Zelenskyy, including that peace with Russia is a remote possibility, Trump decided to suspend all military aid to Ukraine and partially its intel sharing.
Whether or not this negatively affected the Ukrainian troops in Kursk Oblast, who are now leaving Russian sovereign territory, is subject to debate since the Ukrainian forces in Donetsk and Luhansk Oblast have managed to stall the Russian advance in recent days despite the cuts.
A thaw in the desert
Toward the evening, it became apparent that the lengthy preparations and diplomatic maneuvers paid off.
Both the Ukrainian and the US delegation issued a joint statement stating that “representatives of both nations praised the bravery of the Ukrainian people in defense of their nation and agreed that now is the time to begin a process toward lasting peace.”
Ukraine also supported the US proposal to enact an immediate, interim 30-day ceasefire, which can be extended by mutual agreement of the parties, should Russia agree.
“The delegations also discussed the importance of humanitarian relief efforts as part of the peace process, particularly during the abovementioned ceasefire, including the exchange of prisoners of war, the release of civilian detainees, and the return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children. Both delegations agreed to name their negotiating teams and immediately begin negotiations toward an enduring peace that provides for Ukraine’s long-term security,” the statement reads, adding: “The United States committed to discussing these specific proposals with representatives from Russia. The Ukrainian delegation reiterated that European partners should be involved in the peace process.”
Rubio and Waltz likewise immediately reacted to the meeting, saying that as a result of it, the US decided to immediately resume all military and intel sharing with Ukraine. The resumption was confirmed by Ukrainian official channels and US intel chief Tulsi Gabbard.
“Today was a good day for peace. Thanks to @POTUS‘s leadership and under the gracious hospitality of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, we are one step closer to restoring durable peace for Ukraine. The ball is now in Russia’s court,” Rubio tweeted.
Meanwhile, Zelenskyy emphasized in his tweet that “our position remains absolutely clear: Ukraine has been seeking peace from the very first second of this war, and we want to do everything to achieve it as soon as possible and in a reliable way—so that war does not return.”
The outcome was also welcomed by European leaders who likewise had a busy day in Paris, where 30 chiefs of joint staff gathered to discuss the deployment of European peacekeepers to Ukraine and post-ceasefire ideas, with French Minister of Defense Sebastien Lecornu saying that France will not accept “any demilitarization of the Ukrainian army,” a matter that was reportedly not brought up at the talks.
Trump reacted swiftly to the negotiations, urging Russia to accept the ceasefire and pledging to have a conversation with Putin while inviting Zelenskyy back to the Oval Office. Likely to sign the minerals deal.
Ball in Putin’s court
The central question now is what the much-buzzed-about ceasefire would look like.
Before the talks, former Ukrainian defense minister Andriy Zagorodnyuk commented to the NYT that Russia has greater potential to rebuild its army than any pause in the fighting.
“If we have nothing, and Russia is pumping up their forces, in one year, they will be ready to strike again,”he said.
However, this highly accurate forecast rests on the assumption that a ceasefire is possible at all.
So far, little suggests that. Beyond the public spats and Trump’s claims that Putin is “okay” with European peacekeepers and that he “trusts Putin,” not much has changed in actual terms of the peace negotiations.
The Kremlin’s rhetoric remains as rigid as ever, rejecting the notion of NATO member states’ peacekeepers in Ukraine or any concessions to Ukraine, which the Trump administration also insists on. This is despite the wobbly Russian economy, which continues to endure sanctions, including those imposed by the Biden administration in a farewell bid, and the US tactic of appeasing the Kremlin to bring Putin to the table.
The ceasefire’s notion has already been rejected by Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, who reiterated that Russia is only interested in a long-term peace deal that would “eliminate the roots of the conflict.” In other words, for Ukraine to surrender unconditionally and fulfill all Russian demands, the chief of which is that Ukraine ceases to exist.
A loose agreement where 80% of Ukrainian territory is on track to join the EU, has European peacekeepers around, America’s vested interests stemming from the rare minerals deal, and a military-industrial complex defies the purpose of Russia’s war on Ukraine in principle.
This poses a conundrum to both the Russians, who are likely to reject the ceasefire proposal as per Reuters latest report, and the Trump team, which made it clear that the ball is now in Russia’s court. Such messaging essentially translates into an ultimatum.
“The telegraphed threat to them is “agree to a ceasefire or the US will arm the Ukrainians to the hilt, and you will lose.” I doubt Vladimir Putin is smiling so broadly now,” wrote Colonel Tim Collins, the former British Army officer immediately after the talks in Jeddah.
While it is too early to tell what happens, this possibility can’t be ruled out.
For all the outrage with Trump’s approach to the Russo-Ukraine war, its logic follows the assumption that Putin can be essentially bribed into stopping the war through concessions like being reinstated in the civilized global community, sanctions removal, and promises that Ukraine won’t join NATO. The latter, for example, is outlined in the plan authored by Special Peace Envoy General Keith Kellogg in his paper “How an America First Foreign Policy Reduced Risks from Russia During the Trump Administration.”
If facts defy that logic, the situation looks like another cûl-de-sac for all the parties involved.
What happens next largely depends on how devious the Kremlin is and how determined Trump is to follow through on his promise to force Russia to come to the table through sanctions or else. After all, that’s how he opened his negotiation with Russia: by authoring an angry Truth Social post.
Republican Ukraine supporters like Lindsey Graham, who is preparing a new bill on sanctions against Russia, and Joe Wilson, who offered the Freedom First Lend-Lease Act, are only happy to assist him in this.
